Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutShort Plat File No 018-77
1zsee'099') a=
Z2z‘oes'l6! N
ssa N
i RECEIVED
/ CITY OF RENTON
Many EXAMINER
/ 215 1977
/ AM
2,8: Drl0Mbei2s a ge 141516
/
/ 4
\ \
yf \ rane | F
i
== / EXHIBIT NO.+
ITEM NO. 26.4 077
O07- TL £0020 -F7
a
PMT MOTE TALE EE UBS Tae ees ITN ER EO BES
¥
ty, THOR. OY TUPPER TENGE CoP
yea . Wa
ed La 8/7 Fog VP ON Wet
wf, 4 — ON Lid“:
¥
9'C'F'S'S! AH O'6'8'2
Wd WY Hers Taya
HSN XS ONIYVSH
NOLNSY 4O ALIX.
G3AI993u .
\
= ra
'
\ x
NA
js
‘o
av
a
2 ERS oa — a _— _ 59
_
a a OT ia
_— — _ >“
_- ee — SAVOY 60
L-— ~~ = RES\DENCE.
oa 3! a rs ae > TF
wan a IT PROPOSED PAVEMENT = : — i
~ eeapenint” 1 PAVED pr— © t = i a a u ar ———— IT’ PRESENT 20 OVERALL EASEMENT | post
ts ‘ — f Yk eeesent
La - a “Nips a Bost iat une - F zB casas . £ ae at | CARECRT EASEMENT G2.
ae _ fe = pce
d ae —~ = 4 Pe ———
2 ao —_— MORRSSON
ae 2 ee _ a RESIDENCE. 63
: ea an) Pw Sf
PosT —
PROPOSED r i NEW HOUSE. o4
mi. GREENE.
bd - RES|DENCE. SSS = = ss
ee MENDENHALL > ee
vO ao RESIDENCE. 65
@ — $
Tis! BI6H ae SCALE = |"=40"
RECEIVED _) ae
CITY OF RENTON tj9 a epee
HEARING EXAMINER 4o PLAT
, WEST (@8' Lors sixty TWOGZ) 4 SIXTY THREE GA),
MAR 151977 t BLOCK "AS HILLMAN’S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN
AM PM Soe \ OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEANLE No.1 ACCORDING
re 819110, Wyld 2131 41516 9) TO PLAT THERESE RECORDED IN VOLUME || y OF PLATS, PAGE G2, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY
4
_
! tee EXHIBIT NO. 5 oe eee
= ITEM NO. G4 Ae 18-77 =e
Wp @ Pe .97F
TOGETHER. WITH S&ZOUD CLASS SHORELANDS
ADJOINING, AS ESTABUSHED BY DECREE.
ENTERED OCTORERN9.\G23 IN_ KING @u
_ ete CMISE. NO. agi | ire
With SIXTY SNE SD Ye AN Foy eeu mS SLY WO G2)
Ase oxi
v Beason id BRA ay NN
~ -~ Cora
Radios vor Aa CAL a ad ¥ Py ac Cr a oe
s
his
59 g,
/ vy OO G2 é
,
cy
PA
a
d
a
sO
er
|
¢ 4.
wt
BV
O
SE
.
“
S
ney
STOP STOP STOP STOP. OTOP!
DOCUMENTS UNDER THIS NOTICE —
HAVE BEEN MICROFILMED. DO NOT
REMOVE NOTICE FROM FILE. NEW
FILING SHOULD BE ADDED ON TOP OF
NOTICE. PAGES REMOVED UNDER THE
NOTICE FOR COPYING MUST BE RETURNED
TO THE SAME PLACE UNDER THE NOTICE.
STOP!
STOP STOP STOP STOP
BEGINNING OF FILE
NOTICE OF Css PUBLIC HEARING Le PS RENTON LAND USE mites \ HEARING EXAMINER yy 1 ’ Vy L aN RENTON, WASHINGTON Affidavit of Publication -_ WILL BE HELO BY URE \ if i RENTON LAND USE t HEARING EXAMINER AT i) HIS REGULAR MEETING oy IN THE COUNCIL CHAM-
STATE OF WASHINGTON ; \ COUNTY OF KING 23s
oath, deposes and says that she: isthe ehieé-eherkeccccc of
THE RENTON RECORD-CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4)
times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred
to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news-
paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington,
and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained
at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton
Record-Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to-wit, King County,
Washington. That the annexedisa......2. Nobiee...O£...PURLA Gc
Hearing
SIG GRMN MN. eis. ei ahadioaREND? as it was published in regular issues (and
not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period
Of woe OMe ee consecutive issues, commencing onthe
$thodayof.. MAY GN i cccccssseeeees 19...7.7..., and ending the
easiness ay Of 2.0... ce cece escent seetsttestssseeseeeeey 19........, both dates
inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub-
scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee
charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $..32...94which
has been paid in fullattherateof per folio of one hundred words for the
first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent
insertion.
Notary Public. i ington,
County.
ae for the State of
residing at Kent,
S te Lug ven, Hd 6
— Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June
9th, 1955S.
— Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,
adopted by the newspapers of the State.
BERS, CITY HALL, RE-
NTON, WASHINGTON, ON
MARCH 15, 1977, AT 9:00
A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS:
1. APPLICATION FOR TWO LOT S$ PLAT APPROVE
—_-file Nog-018-77> property located in
vicinity of 3011 Mt.
View Ave. No.
2. APPLICATION FOR
EXCEPTION TO } SUBDIVISION ‘OR- / :
DINANCE; ‘file Nov*
E-019-77; property
located in vicinity of
3011 Mt. View Ave.
No.
3. WAIVER OF OFF- SITE IMPROVE- MENTS FOR TWO LOT SHORT PLAT; file No. W-020-77;
property located in vicinity of 3011 Mt.
View Ave. No.
4. REZONE FROM G- 6000 TO R-3; file No.
R-022-77; property
located between
Lake Washington
and Ripley Lane
North adjacent to
and north of Misty
Cove Apartments. 5. SITEAPPROVALIN
M-P ZONE; file No.
SA-021-77; property
located on north side
of S.W. 7th St. west
of Hormel Co. facility
and east of the Ear-. lington Golf Course
and railroad spur
track.
Legal descriptions of ap-
plications noted above on file in Renton Pianning De-
partment. ALL INTERESTED PER-
SONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRE- SENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 15, 1977 AT 9:00 A.M. TO EX- PRESS THEIR OPINIONS. GORDON Y. ERICKSNE RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR
Published in The Renton
Record-Chronicie March 4,
1977. R4224
a i a THE CITY OF RENTON
“ a MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055
So ass bes CHARLES J. DELAURENT!, MAVOR @ LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
ro JAMES L. MAGSTADT, 235-2593
7€D sepre™
April 6, 1977
Mr. & Mrs. Gary A. Greene RE: File No. Short Plat #018-77
4648-89th Avenue S.E. Exception #019-77
Mercer Island, WA 98040 Waiver #020-77
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Greene:
This is to notify you that the above referenced requests
which were denied as noted on the Examiner's report of
March 21, 1977, have not been appealed within the time
period set by ordinance, and therefore, this application
is considered final and is being submitted to the City
Clerk effective this date for permanent filing.
Sincerely,
4 a. - ee
ied *) VA, ‘Le ely "Oa Ae wt "~
Asan L.. Magstadt
Hearing Examiner
JLM:mg
cc: YWDel Mead, City Clerk
%
March 21, 1977
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.
APPLICANT: Gary A. Greene FILE NO. Short Plat #018-77
Exception #019-77
Waiver #020-77
LOCATION: Vicinity of 3011 Mountain View Avenue North.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a two-lot short
plat, together with an exception from the
Subdivision Ordinance to allow the short plat
with a 20 foot private easement to the proposed
interior lot, and a waiver from the off-site
improvement ordinance.
SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval of short plat and
RECOMMENDATION: exception with conditions;
denial of waiver request &
granting an indefinite
deferral.
Hearing Examiner: Denial.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received
REPORT: by the Examiner on March 8, 1977.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report,
examining available information on file with the
application, and field checking the property and
Surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a
public hearing on the subject as follows:
The hearing was opened on March 15, 1977, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building.
Parties wishing to testify were sworn.
It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received
and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered
into the record as Exhibit #1.
Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered
the following additional exhibits into the record:
Exhibit #2: Assessor's Map.
Exhibit #3: Detailed Site Plan, Proposal of Lot
Separation.
The Examiner asked Mr. Smith when the short plat request was submitted.
Mr. Smith indicated he did not have the exact date, but the applicant
would supply this information during his testimony. The Examiner
inquired about the width of the proposed easement, and Mr. Smith
responded that the easement would be 17 feet in width with a proposal
to extend the area to 20 feet by utilizing 3 feet of the subject site
and expand the paving to 15-16 feet. He reported that the present
paved portion is 9 feet in width.
o
Short Plat #018-77 Page Two
Exception #019-77
Waiver #020-77
The Examiner noted that the applicant had submitted three applications
and requested Mr. Smith to summarize them together, but that they would
be reviewed separately by the Examiner.
Mr. Smith read a letter which had been submitted to the Planning
Department by the applicant on February 10, 1977, regarding exception
to short plat off an easement. The Examiner requested clarification
on the map regarding a turnaround provision from the requested
easement, which Mr. Smith subsequently described.
The Examiner asked if Mr. Smith had additional exhibits or information
to present. Mr. Smith indicated that he had no further comments at
that time.
The Examiner asked Mr. Greene, the applicant, if he concurred in the
Planning Department report. Mr. Greene indicated concurrence but
asked to comment on the report. Speaking was:
Gary A. Greene
4648 89th Avenue S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Mr. Greene reported that in response to the Examiner's inquiry, the
property to the north was short platted ten to fifteen years ago.
In regard to the turnaround, Mr. Greene indicated that a turnaround
was possible and would be incorporated into the final design plan.
The applicant stated that he would be willing to answer any further
questions.
The Examiner asked for additional testimony in favor of the application.
Responding was:
Bev G. Morrison
3011 Mountain View Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Morrison briefly summarized the history of acquisition of the
property and indicated that Lot B, which contains 10,500 square feet,
had been deeded to his son-in-law, Mr. Greene. He stated that the
proposed structure would not interfere with the value of neighboring
property and was hopeful that the request would not cause dissension
in the neighborhood.
The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application.
Responding was:
William I. Mendenhall
3007 Mountain View Avenue N.
P.O. Box 357
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Mendenhall reported that he resides to the south of Mr. Morrison
and had spoken with Mr. Greene on March 14 regarding the proposed
construction. He indicated he was opposed to the request for the
following reasons: 1) A verbal agreement was made by neighbors at
the time of original purchase and construction of homes to place
structures in a line to prevent the obstruction of views. However,
some owners had broken the agreement during sale of homes; 2) Building
a residence in front of his home would not increase the value of the
property, and he objected to problems of drainage and obstruction of
lake view; 3) Mr. Mendenhall's residence would face directly towards
the proposed residence because of the existing dogleg in the land; and
4) He did not wish to develop his property, and the development would
entail negotiating with the abutting neighbor, Mr. Shane, for an
easement access. Mr. Mendenhall briefly reviewed the history of
acquisition of the property and expressed the desire to maintain a
good relationship with his neighbors, but felt the need to conform to the original verbal agreement.
Short Plat #018-77 Page Three
Exception #019-77
Waiver #020-77
The Examiner inquired about the agreement. Mr. Mendenhall indicated
that it was verbal, not written, but felt it was a moral, binding
agreement. The Examiner reported that the Planning Department had
indicated a concern regarding obstruction of views, and asked Mr.
Mendenhall if the proposed low profile structure was limited to a
maximum height of 15-18 feet, would it obstruct his view of the lake.
Mr. Mendenhall responded that a new home would obstruct his view and
expressed the concern that a precedent would be set which would
increase the density of the area and obstruct views from existing
residences.
The Examiner asked Mr. Mendenhall if the structure could be placed
on any area of the lot which would not impair the view. Mr. Mendenhall
reported that the property is level from front to back and because of
the dogleg, construction of a home on any area of the property would
impair the view.
The Examiner indicated that stipulations of the request would include
submitting a site plan and elevation plan of the proposed building
which would require approval by the Planning Department and the
adjacent property owners. Mr. Mendenhall stated that he would contact
an attorney regarding his legal rights in the matter, and indicated
he would require more time to investigate all aspects of the proposal.
The Examiner stated that he would desire to leave all options open in
the matter and asked if Mr. Mendenhall would consider any extenuating
circumstances. Mr. Mendenhall indicated his opposition and requested
reservations for future action.
The Examiner asked for further testimony in opposition to the request.
Responding was:
Charles Shane
3003 Mountain View Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Shane stated that should Mr. Mendenhall develop his property in
the same way as the applicant's proposal, it would create a similar
view-obstructing situation from his residence. He reported that
purchase of his home had been made because of the desirability of
owning lake front property, and felt that construction of homes on
the lake front portion of the lot changed this aspect. He spoke
regarding the height of the road which is approximately 16 feet above
the water level and the proposed structure which would be limited to
15-18 feet, and reported that homeowners in the area had broken the
verbal agreement to a certain extent with construction of boathouses
and second story additions, and expressed the apprehension that the
verbal agreement would be further broken if homes were sold to new
owners. The Examiner asked Mr. Shane if he had considered dividing
his property and Mr. Shane indicated that he had not. The Examiner
asked Mr. Shane if restricting the height of the building to 18 feet
would obstruct the view. Mr. Shane indicated that it would be
obstructive because of the view of the roof.
The Examiner asked for further testimony in opposition. There was
none. The Examiner asked Mr. Greene if he had further comments in
rebuttal. Mr. Greene submitted two additional exhibits:
Exhibit #4: Elevation Map of Property.
Exhibit #5: Site Plan with Trees Designated.
He explained that the elevation map illustrated the grade from a
north/south point of view and shows no difference between the grade
of the Mendenhall property and the subject property, but if one stands
on the property, the Mendenhall property has a slightly higher
elevation than is shown on the map. He indicated that the verbal
agreement had been broken by the construction of a structure on the
Burr property which has been subdivided. He reported that drainage
@ Short Pi ,~ #018-77 Page Four
Exception #019-77
Waiver #020-77
tiles would be installed on the subject property and felt that the
size of the lot of 10,500 square feet prevented a crowded appearance.
He stated that he had agreed to restrictive covenants limiting the
height of the structure to 15-18 feet.
The applicant explained Exhibit #5, which illustrates a number of
large trees including three large willow trees on the Mendenhall
property, one in excess of 75 feet, which he felt were an obstruction
of the view. He indicated that the Burr residence was 20 feet in
height, but did not obstruct the view from the Morrison residence.
With respect to the elevation, he stated the property is flat, but
increases in height on a crest where existing two-story residences
have been placed. The Examiner asked the applicant about the
contemplated design of the structure. Mr. Greene responded that he
did not plan a flat level house, but would construct a one-story
home with a moderate pitched roof within the height limitation
including the chimney. He indicated there would be no second addition.
The Examiner suggested continuing the hearing in order to allow the
applicant time to contact an architect or have a detailed elevation
plan prepared. Mr. Greene indicated his concurrence and stated that
he had agreed to everything the Planning Department imposed in every
respect. He reported that he had contacted the King County Assessor's
office to investigate property values from a tax point of view and
that the new structure would not increase or decrease property values
in any way. The Examiner asked if the applicant would be willing to
have an architectural site plan and elevation plan prepared even if
the request may be eventually denied or approved. Mr. Greene indicated
his willingness to prepare the necessary plans.
Mr. Morrison stated that the greatest problem with existing lake
views is the presence of large trees on the Mendenhall property, and
felt that the trees could be cut if the issue were the maintenance
of the view. The Examiner asked Mr. Morrison if he had trees on his
property and Mr. Morrison responded that one large tree exists on
Lot B, and it is the intent of the applicant to top the tree. Mr.
Morrison reported that a certain amount of construction had been
accomplished for houses, additions, boat and bath houses, and felt
that the original verbal agreement had been broken between the four
homeowners in the area and was no longer valid.
Mr. Smith commented that the Planning Department staff reports are
prepared without contact with abutting neighbors, and felt that to be
fair to all residents, site and elevation plans should be prepared to
increase awareness of significant impact on existing views, and that
the Planning Department would recommend that this be accomplished. He
indicated that restrictions on the property would be in the form of
covenants with the land, site storm water retention facilities, and
that the Planning Department would not recommend approval of a
condition that will detract from the view.
The Examiner asked Mr. Mendenhall if these suggestions were agreeable
to him. Mr. Mendenhall stated that regarding the previous discussion
about view-obstructing trees, that trees are natural objects and can
be removed, but houses are permanent structures and cannot be removed.
The Examiner directed the comment to Mr. Mendenhall that if he were
opposed to any type of construction, the Examiner would be causing
needless delay to continue the hearing in order to allow preparation
of the pertinent maps and plans and asked Mr. Mendenhall if he would
want to hold his final decision until review of such plans. Mr.
Mendenhall restated that he was opposed to construction, that he may
consider development of the property at some future time, but not at
the present time.
The Examiner summarized the application and noted that his job is not
always an easy one, and he makes every attempt when possible to
arbitrate between supporting and opposing parties. He stated that
both property owners have certain rights, that he would review all
comments and arguments for and against the application, consider the
rights of both parties and reach his conclusion.
The hearing on Item #018-77, #019-77, and #020-77 was closed by the
Examiner at 10:20 a.m.
~
Short Plat #018-77 Page Five
Exception #019-77
Waiver #020-77
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the record
in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
Ms Mr. Greene, the applicant, requests approval of a two lot short
plat together with an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance to
allow the short plat with a 20 foot easement to the proposed
interior lot. A waiver of off-site improvements is also being
requested.
It is the proposal of Mr. Greene to construct a single family
residence on the west one-half of the Morrison property. This has
been designated as Lot B on Exhibit #3. Lot B is approximately
10,500 square feet in area and will access to Mountain View Ave. N.
via a 20 foot easement located on the north portion of the
property and shared by the Burr residence.
The existing zoning in this area is G-6000, minimum lot size
6,000 square feet. The proposed short plat would be in excess of
the minimum requirement for square footage. This area is known
as Coleman Point and consists of approximately four homes with
lots in excess of 300 feet in depth. The Morrison home is in
line with the Savoy residence built to the north, the Mendenhall
residence built to the south, and the Shane residence also located
to the south. These homes are all located approximately 20 to
35 feet from Mountain View Avenue N. and have front yards in excess
of 200 feet.
The Savoy property to the north has a residence constructed on the
west one-half, now known as the Burr residence. This residence was
formerly a boat house that was remodeled into a cottage and then
converted to a residence approximately 10 to 15 years ago. This
residence was constructed prior to adoption of a short plat
ordinance.
Mr. Greene indicated that he proposes to build a single family
residence that would not exceed a height of 15-18 feet and would
be willing to submit plans and profiles illustrating his proposed
residence.
The four homes in this area were apparently built with similar
setbacks to maintain an unobstructed view of the lake. Construction
of these homes was followed by a verbal agreement made by the
neighbors to prevent the obstruction of adjacent views. The Savoy
residence to the north was sold and a subsequent building was
constructed on the west one-half which violated the intent of the
verbal agreement. Adjacent property owners are concerned about
the effect the proposed structure will have on their lake views.
It was noted that there are several large willow trees located on
the western edge of the property which create an obstruction to
the view.
CONCLUSIONS:
Ls
Le
s
)
.
These homes in the Coleman Point area have all been built on lake
front property with considerable depth that has a virtually
unobstructed view of Lake Washington and Mercer Island. The
homes are similar in character and architecture and maintain
Similar open space areas.
This open space has been violated by the construction of the Burr
residence located to the north. There was apparent opposition to
the construction of this building since it violated a verbal
agreement by the four adjacent property owners.
Construction of additional residences in the front yard areas
would change the character of this residential area and would
in effect double the density.
Short Plat #018-77 Page Six
Exception #019-77
Waiver #020-77
4. Several property owners to the north of the applicant's property
oppose the construction of a single family residence on the
Morrison property.
5. These property owners with the exception of the Savoy residence
have resided in this area for a considerable amount of time and
have certain property rights inherent in the purchase of their
residence.
6. Changing the character of this area by short platting should not
be allowed if there is opposition from adjacent property owners.
7. Efforts to reach a compromise in the hearing process between
supporting and opposing parties were not successful in that the
opposition concurred that they would be opposed to any type of
construction in the front yard areas regardless of restrictions
or submittal of site plans.
8. In the future, it may be feasible to short plat this property
and the adjacent property as indicated by Mr. Greene. However,
this shall only be accomplished when there is concurrence by
adjacent property owners to proceed with this subdivision as it
will change the character of the area and infringe on certain
property rights.
RECOMMENDATION:
For each of the above reasons, recommendation of the Hearing Examiner
is to deny the submitted application.
ORDERED THIS 21st day of March, 1977.
A5el ath mes L. MagStadt
Land Use Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED THIS 21st day of March, 1977 by certified mail to
the parties of record:
Gary A. Greene
Bev G. Morrison
William I. Mendenhall
Charles Shane
Karl Morrison
TRANSMITTED THIS 21st day of March, 1977 to the following:
Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti
Council President George J. Perry
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director
Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director
Don J. Smith, Renton Record-Chronicle
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3071, Section 4-3015, request for
reconsideration or notice of appeal must be filed in writing on or
before March 29, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the
decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedures, errors
of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence
which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may
make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen
(14) days of the conclusion of the hearing. This request shall set
forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the
Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he
deems proper.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 15, 1977
APPLICANT: GARY A, GREENE
FILE NO.: SHORT PLAT NO. 018-77; EXCEPTION NO. E-019-77; WAIVER NO. W-020-77
A, SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Applicant requests approval of a two-lot short plat, together
with an exception from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
short plat with a 20 foot private easement to the proposed
interior lot.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner of Record:
GARY A. GREENE AND BEV G. MORRISON
2. Applicant: Gary A. Greene
3. Location: Vicinity of 3011 Mountain View Ave. N.
Lots 62 and 63, Blk "A," Hillman's
Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addi-
tion to Seattle No. 1, according to
plat thereof. Detailed description
available on file in the Planning
4. Legal:
Department.
5. Size of Property: Approximately 21,000 sq. ft. land
area and 15,000 sq. ft. water.
6. Access: Mountain View Avenue N.
7. Existing Zone: G-6000
8. Existing Zoning G-6000
in Area:
9. Comprehensive Single Family Residential
Land Use Plan:
10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing
PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
of the hearing date. Notice was
properly published in the Record Chron-
icle and posted in three places on or
near the site as required by City
ordinance.
The request for short plat, exception, and waiver is to permit
the construction of a single family residence between the
existing single family residence and the shoreline.
HISTORY/BACKGROUND :
The area was platted many years ago into narrow lots. extending
from Mountain View Ave. N. to the Inner Harbor Line. The
existing house was built on two such 30 foot wide lots. The
house was constructed approximately 250 feet from the water's
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 15, 1977
PAGE TWO
RE’ GARY A. GREENE SHORT PLAT APPLICATION NO. 018-77; EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE APPLICATION NO. E-019-77; WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS APPLICATION NO. W-O20-77
edge. The adjacent house to the north was built in approxi-
mately the same position, with a second house later construc-
ted on the waterward portion of the lot subdivided from the
front portion along Mountain View Ave. N. This area is called
Coleman Point and is the only existing residential shoreline
area in Renton that has such large lot depths to the water's
edge.
PHYSICAL BACKGROUND:
1. Topography: The site drops toward Lake Washington from
Mountain View Ave. at a slope of approximately 6%, then
levels off at approximately the center of the property.
The overall elevation difference between the lower half
and the upper half of the site is approximately 7-10 feet.
2. Soils: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (Agc) - Runoff is
slow to medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate.
This soil is used for timber, pasture, row crops, and
urban development.
3. Vegetation: Primarily species induced onto the site by
man, together with lawn area.
4. Wildlife: Various waterfowl and small rodents.
5. Water: The site is adjacent to Lake Washington.
6. Land Use: There is an existing single family residence
on the site with approximately 250 feet of open space
between the structure and the water's edge. There are
single family residences both north and south of the
subject site. Mountain View Ave. N. abuts the property
on the east. The Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-
way exists to the east of Mountain View Ave. N.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
The area consists of single family residences, most of which
are located on waterfront lots. Except for the area imme-
diately on Coleman Point, most of the homes have been con-
structed on lots with a relatively small amount of develop-
able area.
PURLIC SERVICES:
1. Water and Sewer: An 8" sanitary sewer main and a 6" water
main are available to the subject site.
2. Fire Protection: Provided by the Renton Fire Department
and subject to City of Renton requirements.
3. Transit: Metro Transit Route No. 240 operates along
Lake Washington Blvd. and Burnett Ave. N.
4. Schools: The site is within 3/4 mile of Kennydale Elemen-
tary School.
5. Parks: The subject site is within 1/4 mile of Kennydale
Beach Park and Lake Washington Beach Park.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT .
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 15, 1977
PAGE THREE
RE: GARY A. GREENE SHORT PLAT APPLICATION NO. 018-773; EXCEPTION
H,
TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE APPLICATION NO. E-019-77; WAIVER
OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS APPLICATION NO. W-020-77
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE:
1. 4-729, "G" General Classification District
2. 4-706, R-1 Residence Single Family
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS:
1. Subdivision Regulations:
a. Section 9-1105, Plat Requirements for Short Subdivisions
b. Section 9-1108, 23.A(9), Private Streets and Reserve
Stripes
c. Section 9-1108, 23.F
d. Section 9-1109, Exceptions
IMPACTS ON NATURAL SYSTEMS:
The subject proposal will remove a certain amount of soil and
increase runoff through the addition of more impervious sur-
faces to the site.
SOCIAL IMPACTS:
The additional residence to the area will create new social
interactions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD :
Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and
the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 as amended (RCW
43.21C), a Declaration of Non-significance has been issued for
the subject proposal (see attached).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
A visinity map and site map are attached.
DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS;
1. The proposed lot sizes are approximately 10,500 square feet
each, exceeding the requirement of 6,000 square feet for
the G-6000 zone.
2. The applicant proposes to construct a low profile residence
on the proposed lot. This combined with the elevation
difference of adjacent properties, should not significantly
impact the view waterward from adjacent properties. How-
ever, height restrictions should be considered.
3. The property immediately to the north of the subject site
has been subdivided in a similar arrangement and a house
constructed on a pipestem-type lot. The applicant pro-
poses to use this pipestem as an access easement to the
proposed interior lot. The proposed overall width of this
easement is 20 feet, which complies with the 20 foot mini-
mum pipestem width of the Sibdivision Ordinance,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 15, 1977
PAGE FOUR
RE: GARY A. GREENE SHORT PLAT APPLICATION NO. 018-77; EXCEPTION
TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE APPLICATION NO. E-019-77; WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS APPLICATION NO. W-020-77
ie
The applicant proposes to pave approximately 6 feet in
addition to the existing 9 foot wide paved area to provide
a total paved driveway width of approximately 15 feet. Al]
city departments, including the Fire Department, have no
objections to the short plat, exception, and waiver.
It may also be possible for the property owner to the
south to subdivide in a similar manner. However, it does
not appear to have sufficient width between structures on
either side to facilitate a suitable driveway easement or
pipestem. Therefore, the granting of the subject request
may not set a precedent in the area.
No curbs, gutters, or sidewalks exist along Mountain View
Ave. N. The applicant has agreed to establish restrictive
covenants requiring participation of the subject property
in’any LID for such improvements.
Sewer and water are available to the site.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDAT LON;
Recommend approval of the short plat and exception to permit
the private easement as proposed subject to:
1. Final Planning Department approval of site plan design
and elevation of any structure constructed on the site,
with particular emphasis on height control to protect the views of adjacent properties. (Suggested maximum
height of 15-18 feet.)
Access and utility easements shall be filed with the short
plat. The access easement shall be a minimum 20 feet in
width and be permanently surfaced to a width of 15 feet
to allow proper fire, emergency, and vehicular access.
Recommend denial of the subject waiver request as per Public
Works Department comment and granting of an indefinite deferral
subject to filing of restrictive covenants with the subject
property to ensure its participation in a future LID for such
off-site improvements.
ie ia ie oe i al LiL 1 qT he
q
) etait THC
Cane itl Ars eat | a
PITY TTT
TT |
TL pee SUIT TTD
t Ub aed NCGS
y
SHORT PLAT; EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE; WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS:
GARY A. AND JOAN GREENE; File Nos. 018-77, E-019-77, W-020-77; property located in vicinity of 3011 Mountain View Avenue North.
APPLICANT GARY A. & JOAN GREENE TOTAL AREA__ 1.25 acres
PRINCIPAL ACCESS Mountain View Avenue North
EXISTING ZONING G-6000, Single Family Residential
EXISTING USE Single Family Residential
PROPOSED USE Single Family Residential r -
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
COMMENTS
AL
r
SUPPIVISON LINE
&\ SCALE ("=200'
SUBJECT 5ITE ZA
Applicant ~ Garyk ¢ Joan GREENE.
SHort PLAT No. 018-77
WuiveR No. w- 020-77
Rxcrytion - €- 014-77
PROPOSED/FINAL DELLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/Nuw-SIGNIFICANCE
Short Plat No. 018-77
Exception No. E-019-77
Waiver of Off-site Application No. Improvements File W-020-77 C) PROPOSED Declaration
Environmental Checklist No. ECF-216-77 [x] FINAL Declaration
Description of proposal Application for a two-lot short plat approval;
approval for exception from the Subdivision Ordinance for a 20' private
easement to the proposed interior lot; and application for waiver of
off-site improvements.
Proponent —_ Gary A. Greene
Location of Proposal Vicinity of 3011 Mountain View Avenue North
Lead Agency Renton Planning Department
This proposal has been determined to () have not havea
significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS is Gy is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was
made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
Reasons for declaration of environmental significance:
Measures, if any, that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the
environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would
withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final )
declaration of non-significance:
Responsible Official Gordon Y. Ericksen
ritte Plan Date 3-3-7/7
Signature
City of Renton e gonny Department
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
WHEREAS, Gary A. Greene 5 Joan Greene
B.G. Morrison Sylvia Z. Morrison bd
5
are the owners of the following real property in the City of Renton
County of King, State of Washington, described as Exhibit '‘'A'
attached hereto.
WHEREAS, the owner(s) of said described property desire to
impose the following restrictive covenants running with the land as
to use, present and future, of the above described real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid owner(s) hereby establish,
grant and impose restrictions and covenants running with the land
hereinabove described with respect to the use by the undersigned,
their successors, heirs, and assigns as follows:
INSTALLATION OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The owner(s) of the above described property, their suc-
cessors, heirs and assigns, hereby agree and covenant to
participate in, sign a petition in support of, and accept
any future Local Improvement District (LID) or city initia-
ted proposal, and pay their fair share therefore, for the
purposes of providing the necessary off-site improvements
required by the Renton Subdivision Ordinance. Said improve-
ments shall include but may not be limited to the installa-
tion of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street paving, sanitary
sewers, storm sewers, undergrounding of utilities, and
Street lighting.
These covenants are imposed in lieu of Section 9-1105(6)
of Title IX of Ordinance #1628 of the City of Renton.
DURATION
These covenants shall run with the land and expire on
December 31, 2025. If at any time improvements are
installed pursuant to these covenants, the portion of
the covenants pertaining to the specific installed improve-
ments as required by the Ordinances of the City of Renton
shall terminate without necessity of further documentation.
Any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants may be
enforced by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King
County by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining
subject property who are adversely affected by said breach.
Gary A. Greene Joan Greene
B.G. Morrison Sylvia Z. Morrison
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF KING )
On this SA. day of ~hsecay , 1977, before me - Z
personally anhepres 7 , ly > Ti ; Y
NOL Af 4 A TAL Deep > > ML (L 1G, \e a wt ; 2 ) / “oY Lay XN WA » a ( As F ( San a ae . % ya | t44, { ee, +) J, / Ls i L ig J @ s ae a —— 9
the person(s) who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and
deed of said person(s) for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal the day and year first above written.
Spb ar" Public in and for edo
of Washington, residing at) yee 4 :
CITY OF RENTON
PLAT APPLICATION
OF A afl,
=
ufcuomn PLAT aN Co MAJOR PLAT
TENTATIVE
PRELIMINARY coc
FINAL INCH
Xe pepr®
Shout HV et
FILE NO. @/f-77
DATE REC'D =< -’6-7%7 ae - ae. So: F750
FEE $/7A¢
RECEIPT NO. “FT __
SM NO.
PUD NO.
APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7:
1. Plat Name & Location 3011 #72 mountain View Avenue North Legal
Description Attached
2. No. Lots_ 2 Total Acreage]] ,280 #d.g0ning6-6000
3. Owner _ Gary A, and Joan Greene Phone__AD 2.9261
Address 4648 89th Avenue Southeast, Mercer Island, Washington 98040
4.. Engineer Phone
\ Address
\ 5. Underground Utilities:
Telephone
Electric
Street Lights
| Natural Gas
, TV Cable
6. Sanitation & Water:
Yes No Not Installed
/X¥ City Water (XK Sanitary Sewers
/_/ Water District No. /_/ Dry Sewers
/_/ Septic Tanks
7. Vicinity and plat maps as required by Subdivision Ordinance
t
a a a =
8. DATE REFERRED TO:
Scene
ENGINEERING PARKS
BUILDING HEALTH
TRAFFIC ENG. STATE HIGHWAY
FIRE COUNTY PLANNING
BD. PUBLIC WORKS OTHER
D6 STAFF ACTION:
___ SHORT PLAT APPROVED DENIED
___ TENTATIVE PLAT . APPEALED ___ EXPIRED
10. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: * |
___ PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED DENIED
___ FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED
ii, ereY COUNCTL. Acr ran:
_ PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED __ _ DENIED _
FINAL PLAT AVPBALED EXPIRED
12. DEFERRED IMPROVEMENTS : DATE DATE BOND NO. TYPE GRANTED EXPIRES AMOUNT
Planning Dept.
Rev. 12/71
a ee hn cc . aes
\
,
IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON
~Wwest—re8 lots sixty-two (62) and sixty-three (63),
block "A", Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden
Addition to Seattle No. 1, according to plat thereof
recorded in Volume II of plats, page 63, records of
said county;
' TOGETHER with Second class shorelands adjoining, as
established by decree entered October 19, 1923, in
King County Superior Court Cause No. 156371.
AFFIDAVIT
I, , being duly sworn, declare that I
am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the
foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. ) { B.G. sean sae
i vd , AL a KL hh, a ood aan
Subscribed and sworn before ne ; a! Sylvia Z. Morrison
: ‘ ‘ ; “s Oye this /% day ot A bsct ay (WIZZ ow, E74): Y CAMA A O47
Notary Public in and for the State of ~ Q Greene
menpeeens residing at Avot ar i q {liv x ULL (hy
ery A. Greene
yaa OZ i he B low £ A [ey ae Tame of Notary Public) (Signatufe of Owner)
)
DP oe /
fsck. athe Ave VE 39 (C24 4648 89th S.E.
Address) (Address)
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
(city) (State)
AD 2 - 9261 (Telephone)
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
CERTIFICATION
Fhis 18 to certify. eo RE RS foregoing application has been inspected by me
end has been fou E pRgough and complete in every particular and to
lations of the Renton Planning Department conform to the a
governing the fii Decidatpi ication,
19 By:
Date Received
Renton Planning Dene,
fr We Ake, 4L-OVG-97
cP a
Aee err Wo. YAP ALY
4648 89th Avenue Southeast
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
February 10, 1977
Planning Department
City of Renton
City Hall
Renton, Washington 98055
Attention: Hearing Examiner and City Council
EXCEPTION TO SHORT PLAT OFF AN EASEMENT
We are requesting an exception to the subdivision ordinance to
allow a 2 lot short plat with access provided by private ease-
ment to one of the lots. We feel this request is justified for
the following reasons.
The subject property was purchased by B.G. and Sylvia Morrison
in 1947, and they have been sole owners since.
Mr. and Mrs. Morrison have deeded the west 188’ together with
second-class shoreline adjoining to Gary and Joan Greene, for
the purpose of building a low-profile home thereon. The ad-
joining property to the north is owned by Robert Burr, who has
access by private road from Mountain View Avenue North.
Mr. Robert Burr has agreed to grant an easement for access to
the west 188' of subject property and B.G. Morrison is willing
to grant a 3' easement paralleling said road in order to give
said easement a 20' width, and paved road a 16' width.
To date a recent survey of proposed easement has not been made
by a qualified engineer. If this is necessary please inform
us.
We know of two or three other properties on Mountain View Avenue
North where two houses have joint access*from Mountain View
Avenue North far less desirable than this proposal submitted.
With this proposal we are filing a covenant to agree to builda
low-profile (one story) house, so that the view from adjoining
properties will not be impaired.
When Ted Jones owned the Burr property approximately fifteen years
ago, he agreed to a joint easement with Mr. Morrison. However, it
was not anticipated that zoning regulations would subsequently be
made to prohibit this action without a request for variance.
Mr. Burr is in the process of building an addition to his home and
is in urgent need of new underground utility lines for his property.
We propose to work together in this regard.
We feel that the proposed subdivision of this property to build a
low-profile house would not be contrary to the city's comprehensive
plan, as the zoning is residential in this area. The lot is 188'
x 60' and is larger than minimum size for a single dwelling. The
access to the lot will certainly be large enough for vehicles,
utilities, fire protection and water supply. The sewer line has
already been established on this lot.
Ae ArLernre,
Gary A. Greene, Applicant
‘ fi te Wb. tthe 625-97
hederpr Ws CLSBELG
4648 89th Avenue Southeast
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
February 10, 1977
Planning Department
City of Renton
City Hall
Renton, Washington 98055
Attention: Hearing Examiner and City Council
REQUEST FOR WAIVER FOR OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
I refer to the attached letter to the Renton Planning Department
regarding "An Exception to a Short Plat off an Easement," and
property described therein.
In connection with this short plat application we request a waiver of
off-site improvements which we feel are unnecessary.
There are no off-site improvements on Mountain View Avenue North
at this time. If in the future they are required by the City
of Renton, we will be willing to participate.
Ay Aa
Gary A. Greene, Applicant
OF RE KS CEE“
FEB 16 1977
Oe 0 mt 0 ws eo
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Please review the attached. Review requested by (date):
ROUTING FOR REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORMS
Finance Department
Fire Department
Library Department
Park Department
Police Department
Public Works Department
Building Div. Traffic Engineering Div.
Engineering Div. Utilities Engineering Div.
Planning Department, (signed by responsible official or his
designee) chal Sua i OP-7 7 Sear pear
Review of ECF- 2/6-77 ; Application No.:
Action Name: s¥ pane GREENE, Stoker Peat.
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS:
— gy = Department: yahlhe Ergacersrtey 7 F
Comments: Mo Segui hie au # Feat
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS:
Department: Ltsyyee EX get ereg _
Comments: J ,
Bhs on Ge ee Of? 6 ¢ Fo
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
6-76 (OVER)
“REVIEW BY OTHER CIT EPARTMENTS:
Department:. dD oo
Comments: vail _ be wan 8 £ . * - / -y .
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ~~ pate
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS:
Department: Fife
Comments: ,#cAZSS Fe KAESUSCS SW e4 (80. § Rey tore
L/S EGU IES +f Ly? ef tyeepetl ploHME Abe CWA FELL” ae / . - 2 7 a ae : 2 A ae
Sarr S PPAF, FEL FCCP? TTS PEGI CEO ISS Cut F VEL
? ) - . | C2 Lieto | Lhily Signature of Director pms Representative bate
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS:
Department:
Comments:
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ~~ Date —
EVZTEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS:
Department: + // 4. Z
Comments:
; ) ‘ > f
a : 7 . 4 ie } oy Me eer Fiat ~~ ¥gnature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY sy, 4 “Uk alte vy
Application No. < -@v¥%-74¥ € G-dR20-77
Environmental Checklist No. ACL ~FE-7Y
PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date:
[_] vectaration of Significance [Joectaration of Significance
[_] vectaration of Non-Significance [J oectaratton of Non-Significance
COMMENTS:
Introduction The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires
‘alT state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their
own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS‘be
prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. .
The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or. not a
proposal is such a major action.
Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information
presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers, include your
explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- vant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions now will help all
agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review with-
out unnecessary delay.
The following questions apply to your total proposal, not just to the license for which
you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed,
even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all
of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, with-
out duplicating paperwork in the future. :
NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State
of Washington for various types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to
your proposal. If a question does not apply, just, answer it "no" and continue on to the
next question. 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROUND
1, Name of Proponent Gary A. and Joan Greene
2. Address and phone number of Proponent:
4648 89th S.E. Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Phone #AD 2 - 926]
3. Date Checklist submitted
4. Agency requiring Checklist City lof Renton, Planning Department
5. Name of proposal, if applicable:
6. Nature and brief description of the proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate
understanding of its scope and nature):
Subdivision of a lot allowing a 2 lot short plat with access provided by
a private 20' easement road to one of the lots. Each lot will be 60'x |
188' with only one lot having 60' on Lake Washington. (See attached map
with legal description). The purpose is for building a low profile house
on the water front lot, located approximately 50' from the lake front.
10.
11.
12,
oe tl
#0
Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well
as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including
any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal):
A water front property loacted at 3011 Mountain View Avenue North, Renton,
Washington, 98055. The lot is planted with prass at this time and has a
gentle slope to the water.
Estimated date for completion of the proposal:
Six months after acceptence by Renton Planning Department.
List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal
(federal, state and local--including rezones):
At this time we are applying for a subdivision of property. If approved
we will be applying for building permits, etc.
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
No
Do you know of any plans by others which may*affect the property covered, by your proposal? If yes, explain:
No
Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
We are in the process of filing a short plat application to the City of
Renton Planning Department.
oe ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Aeotis “
(1)
(Explanations of all "yes" and,"maybe" answers are required)
Earth, Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures? YES.
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- covering of the soil? XX
YES MAYBE NO
_(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
(d) The destruction, covening or modification of any
unique geologic or al ba features?
4 i ‘ qo
‘ :
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
a : 5
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? XX. MAYBE ;
Explanation:
(B) - Driveway and house foundation only.
(2)
(3),
(4)
Explanation: Cb) DUE TO COVEPE ID DoE. ROUSE
4 as
Air Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? XX.
YES MAYBE NO
(b) The creation of objectionable odors? a. o.4 YES MAYBE NO
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or
regionally? "iti VES MAYBE
Explanation:
Water. Will the proposal result in: See
(a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of i
- water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Xx
YES MAYBE |
v(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or 7 the rate and amount of surface water. runoff? i = ves. =o NO~
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? “XX
YES MAYBE NO (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body? XX
YES MAYBE NO
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration -
surface water: quality, including but not limited to XX
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? i
‘ YES MAYBE NO
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of "es ground waters? KK YES MAYBE °NO
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either.
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through xX
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? dalle
YES MAYBE WO
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through
direct injection, or thro ano) the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, Waterborne “virus or bacteria, xx
or other substances into the ground waters?
YES MAYBE “NO
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available a
for public water supplies? VES MAYBE
M00 DRIVEWAY
Flora.
(a)
microflora and ps hs phagas)? aes” WKYEE NO
(b) J pn eb of the numbers of any urchin: rare or x gered species of flora? VES" AVE ie
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or
in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ye WAVEE ae
(d) Reduction in acreage of any POMneT MaEe! crop? YES" WAYEE ix.
Explanation: The lot is is ee now, and this will be reduced by the size
Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any
species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
of the house,
ae
(5)
(6)
2)
(8)
(9)
sc
-4-
Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of -
any species of fauna (birds, land animals including ee
reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, Rit
insects or microfauna)? XX YéS WAYBE NO”
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna? me
YES MAYBE NO
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
of fauna? ‘ yx. YES” WAYBE
(d) beterioration to existing fish or wildlite habitat? xt. YES MAYBE NO”
Explanation: :
Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? +9 XX. | ' VES” MAYBE NO
Explanation: a
@ a,
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or va glare? \ vey
YES MAYBE ig
Explanation:
(a)
(10),
(1)
Land Use. . Will the proposal result in the Alteration of the resent or planned land use of an area? XX YES WAYBE NO”
Explanation:
Sia Ae
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? XX.
VES MAYBE NO
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? XX YES” WAYBE WO
Explanation:
Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an*: explosion or the SUR substances (including, &
but not limited to, oil,ipesticides, chemicals or radtgy seni
in the event of an accident or upset conditions? XX YES WAYBE NO
Explanation:
j
Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, or growth rate of the human population _ xx
of an area?
Explanation:
YES~ WAYBE Om
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(a) Fire protection?
«Gis
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? XX
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? ee aN MAYBE NO (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? XX
YES MAYBE WO
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? vES- waver
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods? XX YES MAYBE WO
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
YES MAYBE 0
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? XX
YES MAYBE WO
Explanation: (a a) SUN I _¢ WNOGE, DUE te) OO LON”
OF QUE ESMILY, -
Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services
in any of the following areas:
(b) Police protection?
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities?
rs cir & i a
*(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(f) Other governmental services? a
3
Sk
Ae
Se
Sx
Explanation:
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? VES wAYEE Ge
(b) Demand upon existing sbujene of energy, or require XX the development of.new sources of energy? YES MAYBE NO”
Explanation:
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas?
(b) Communications systems?
(c) Water? 3
ae
=
S|
S|
e
Sz
Ill.
APU TEST Hee
aifs
(d) Sewer or septic tanks? ee _ sail YES MAYBE WO
(e) Storm water drainage? ee _ xx YES MAYBE NO
(f) Solid waste and disposal? eee eee XX YES MAYB NO
Explanation: . ee ee
(17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of ie
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding XX
mental health)?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
(18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of
any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view? Re
YES MAYBE ..NO explanation: (HE SDOMION GF SLOW ORrEE |
House. WILL HNve Nh UiDiMAL ERecr
(19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the xX
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
(20) Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an
alteration of a significant archeological or historical xx site, structure, object or but dt hig? 7 YES MAYBE NO
= meena epee mite oem ine ae em neeineetttie miaem etme mein a
SIGNATURE
IT,
is true
the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information
and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should
there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
/ . ' 4 Proponent: Al ‘ ae La a) b ma signed ;
° ~p SARY As. te NE... Ayn a
City of Renton
Planning Department
5-76
LAKE. \WASHINGTON
a
e
.
5
9
j
o
e
t
e
e
n
e
_
S
A
V
O
Y
c
e
RE
S
\
I
D
E
N
C
E
p
a
t
y
e
m
r
e
a
s
e
B
S
S
L
e
g
B
e
s
S
E
a
a
o
e
e
e
s
e
,
M
e
r
e
E
E
a
E
L
—
—
_
o
e
—
—
x
=
-
U
N
E
.
o
l
I
T
’
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
2
0
O
V
E
R
A
L
L
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
p
r
o
n
a
f
a
|
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
.
.
.
o
a
e
e
=
S
e
e
e
\
U
n
e
N
c
a
3
'
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
6
2
_
=
SS
Oe
M
O
R
R
I
S
O
N
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
,
6
4
o
s
a
e
SS
S
S
_
o
O
o
O
o
e
_
-
l
c
——
-
—
M
E
N
D
E
N
H
A
L
L
_
—
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
.
6
5
SH
O
R
T
PL
A
T
WE
S
T
18
8
’
LO
T
S
si
x
t
y
TW
O
G
2
)
4
SI
X
T
Y
TH
R
E
E
G
S
)
,
BL
O
c
K
"A
S
HI
L
U
M
A
N
’
S
LA
K
E
WA
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
GA
R
D
E
N
OF
ED
E
N
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
TO
SE
A
T
I
L
E
No
.
|
AT
O
R
D
I
N
G
TO
PL
A
T
TH
E
R
E
S
E
RE
C
O
R
D
E
D
IN
VO
L
U
M
E
.
|
|
OF
PL
A
T
S
,
PA
G
E
G2
,
RE
C
O
R
D
S
OF
SA
I
D
CO
U
N
T
Y
TO
G
E
T
H
E
R
.
WI
T
H
SE
Z
O
N
D
CL
A
S
S
SH
O
R
E
L
A
N
D
S
“A
D
J
O
I
N
I
N
G
,
AS
ES
T
A
B
U
S
H
E
D
BY
DE
C
R
E
E
.
EN
T
E
R
E
D
OC
T
O
R
E
R
(
\
9
,
\
6
2
3
IN
_
KI
N
G
@u
n
t
y
SU
P
E
R
I
O
R
,
GO
U
R
T
CA
U
S
E
NO
.
(5
6
5
7
1
TH
EA
S
SN
”
-
NA
LO
T
ao
n
GR
E
C
O
D
NS
Se
SI
X
T
Y
WO
@
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
WHEREAS, Gary A. Greene 5 Joan Greene :
B.G. Morrison Sylvia Z. Morrison ji
3 bg
are the owners of the following real property in the City of Renton,
County of King, State of Washington, described as Exhibit 'A'
attached hereto.
WHEREAS, the owner(s) of said described property desire to
impose the following restrictive covenants running with the land as
to use, present and future, of the above described real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid owner(s) hereby establish,
grant and impose restrictions and covenants running with the land
hereinabove described with respect to the use by the undersigned,
their successors, heirs, and assigns as follows:
INSTALLATION OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The owner(s) of the above described property, their suc-
cessors, heirs and assigns, hereby agree and covenant to
participate in, sign a petition in support of, and accept
any future Local Improvement District (LID) or city initia-
ted proposal, and pay their fair share therefore, for the
purposes of providing the necessary off-site improvements
required by the Renton Subdivision Ordinance. Said improve-
ments shall include but may not be limited to the installa-
tion of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street paving, sanitary
sewers, storm sewers, undergrounding of utilities, and
street lighting. |
These covenants are imposed in lieu of Section 9-1105(6)
of Title IX of Ordinance #1628 of the City of Renton.
; yy Or RES : Tn eN py AS . - co ALL VED eS
Te
oi
e
&
DURATION
These covenants shall run with the land and expire on
If at any time improvements are » 2025,
installed pursuant to these covenants, the portion of
December 31
the covenants pertaining to the specific installed improve-
ments as required by the Ordinances of the City of Renton
shall terminate without necessity of further documentation
Any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants may be
nforced by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King
County by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining
e
subject property who are adversely affected by said breach
Joan Greene Gary A. Greene
Sylvia Z. Morrison B.G. Morrison
; ig? 7s before me
STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF KING )
On this LA day of ebinteay
personally appeared _ » iy f, f gt ( iG ny Ahan, a wut A Ae VAe Ee ee ’ Me, pe! Cig At > oO ane a TA Noda. [Se ao», iaggl lt ") TIBANE JO 8 ; — ienwrar - - t
the person(s) who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and
deed of said person(s) for the uses and purposes therein mentioned
I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
official seal the day and year first above written
cae obi tc in ead for ae residing at: Gos aes . of Washington,
en 4 Ss wo > ra
— g
©
SY
ED erstt™
THE CITY OF RENTON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055
CHARLES J. DELAURENT|, MAYOR @© PLANNING DEPARTMENT
235-2550
February 25, 1977
Gary A. Greene
4648 - 89th Ave. S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
')
NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE
AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR
APPLICATION FOR SHORT PLAT APPROVAL, FILE NO. 018-77, EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, FILE NO. E-019077; |
WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, FILE NO. W-020-77
Gentlemen
“Re Renton Planning Department formally accept the
aiive vzentioned application On ees so77 A
B-riic hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner
hig Dean set for March 15, 1977
=epresentatives of the applicant are asked to be pre-
g27t All interested persons are invited to attend the
heerié2. IF You have any Turther questions, piease call
tr= Renton Planning Department, 235-2550.
wr
Very truly yours,
Gordon Y. Ericksen
Planning Director
i . fo ow e ra
By: WAHL Dorit Michael L. Smith
Associate Planner
WOPICE UF PUBLIC HLARING
RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINE - : . ‘ nw NER AY HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 15 1977 _ , AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS: >
¥ 1. / APPLICATION FOR TWO LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL; file
No. 018-77; property located in vicinity of
3011 Mt. View Ave. No.
2. APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE;
file No. E-019-77; property located in vicinity of
3011 Mt. View Ave. No.
3. WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TWO LOT SHORT
PLAT; file No. W-020-77; property located in vicinity
of 3011 Mt. View Ave. No.
4. REZONE FROM G-6000 TO R-3; file No. R-022-77;
property located between Lake Washington and
Ripley Lane North adjacent to and north of Misty
Cove Apartments.
5. SITE APPROVAL IN M-P ZONE; file No. SA-021-77,;
property located on north side of S.W. 7th St.
west of Hormel Co. facility and east of the
Earlington Golf Course and railroad spur track.
Legal descriptions of applications noted above on file in
Renton Planning Department.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SALD PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 15, 1977 AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. —_
GORDON Y. ERICKSEN RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR PUBLISHED March 4, 1977 I ANNING DIRECTOR
CERTIFICATION
1, __ Michael L. Smith =, - HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn a
to before me, a Notary Public, ff} fi on the lst day of March
1977
HF gow ‘n i F
\ ne J} t\ 1 ¢ fe: ( . dG ne Leta
& ROUTE SCHEDULE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE eouTeo 2H S/77
PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR:
REZONE ! MAJOR PLAT
SITE APPROVAL ppt) Ga@EENIE J ort PLAT
SPECIAL PERMIT WAIVER
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
PERMIT OR EXEMPTION
AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE, BEFORE 24% q7
SIGNATURE OR INITAL DEPARTMENT APPROVAL DENIAL DATE
a CourLoin@
2 lez TRAFFIC ENG, / fa 9)79
. ; al ee Z ENGINEERING ) 2foyf 7? Soe ee 7 :
Log fi?
t } { | tlie fue f } é
PLEASE SIGN THE Ev,il«Was
STOP STOP STOP_ STOP © TOP!
DOCUMENTS UNDER THIS NOTICE
HAVE BEEN MICROFILMED. DO NOT
REMOVE NOTICE FROM FILE. NEW
FILING SHOULD BE ADDED ON TOP OF
NOTICE. PAGES REMOVED UNDER THE
NOTICE FOR COPYING MUST BE RETURNED
TO THE SAME PLACE UNDER THE NOTICE.
o] OP!
STOP STOP STOP STOP
Z cc ) = oO! VE
> fa Op. ON i f wl | GO aN Affidavit of Publication ca
{ Mi AR 15 0 i ;
STATE OF WASHINGTON ~o AJ COUNTY OF KING 2S: c ae ~ ku if wv AN
N Yin n Q iy Sc DEPS
ee Barbara Campagna + being first duly sworndn
oath, deposes and says that gy.a--isthe ehiefi--clerkecc of
THE RENTON RECORD-CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4)
times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred
to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news-
paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington,
and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained
at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton
Record-Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to-wit, King County,
Washington. That the annexedisa...... Notice...o£F...PublLicg.........
Hearing
arora oeresestocaronajposaars rover oars Tap TERT as it was published in regular issues (and
not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period
Of snes (21,0 < ee eee consecutive issues, commencing on the
4thodayof..... MAY GM ee ,19...7.7.., and ending the
ssmeenenss GAY OF cos geseemrmersartzemenesamaasinaennnineemneeremecengel 9 ama DOUNGates
inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub-
scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee
charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $..3.2...Q4which
has been paid in fullattherateof per folio of one hundred words for the
first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent
insertion.
5 ne DLE. AID MHML bf...
Notary Public if and for the State of hington,
residing at Kent, g County.
— Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June
9th, 1955.
— Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures,
adopted by the newspapers of the State.
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE
HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAM- BERS, CITY HALL, RE-
NTON, WASHINGTON, ON
MARCH 15, 1977, AT 9:00
A.M. TO CONSIDER THE
FOLLOWING PETITIONS: 1. APPLICATION FOR
TWO LOT SHORT
PLAT APPROVAL;
_file No, 018-77; ‘property located — in”
vicinity of 3011 Mt. View Ave. No. 2. APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO}. SUBDIVISION OR- / DINANCE; file No.
E-019-77; property
located in vicinity of 3011 Mt. View Ave.
No.
3. WAIVER OF OFF-
SITE IMPROVE-
MENTS FOR on
property “TOCaTe vicinity of 3011 Mt.
View Ave. No.
4. REZONE FROM G-
6000 TO R-3; file No.
R-022-77; property located between
Lake Washington and Ripley Lane
North adjacent to
and north of Misty
Cove Apartments. 5. SITEAPPROVALIN M-P ZONE; file No.
SA-021-77; property
located on north side
of S.W. 7th St. west
of Hormel Co. facility and east of the Ear-.
lington Golf Course
and railroad spur
track. Legal descriptions of ap-
plications noted above on file in Renton Planning De-
partment. ALL INTERESTED PER-
SONS TO SAID PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRE- SENT AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON MARCH 15, 1977 AT 9:00 A.M. TO EX-
PRESS THEIR OPINIONS.
GORDON Y. ERICKSNE RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR
Published in The Renton Record-Chronicle March 4,
1977. R4224
March 21, 1977
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.
APPLICANT: Gary A. Greene FILE NO. Short Plat #018-77
Exception #019-77
Waiver #020-77
LOCATION: Vicinity of 3011 Mountain View Avenue North.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant requests approval of a two-lot short
plat, together with an exception from the
Subdivision Ordinance to allow the short plat
with a 20 foot private easement to the proposed
interior lot, and a waiver from the off-site
improvement ordinance.
SUMMARY OF Planning Department: Approval of short plat and
RECOMMENDATION: exception with conditions;
denial of waiver request &
granting an indefinite
deferral.
Hearing Examiner: Denial.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Planning Department staff report was received
REPORT: by the Examiner on March 8, 1977.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Department report,
examining available information on file with the
application, and field checking the property and
surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a
public hearing on the subject as follows:
The hearing was opened on March 15, 1977, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building.
Parties wishing to testify were sworn.
It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received
and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered
into the record as Exhibit #1.
Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit #1, and entered
the following additional exhibits into the record:
Exhibit #2: Assessor's Map.
Exhibit #3: Detailed Site Plan, Proposal of Lot
Separation.
The Examiner asked Mr. Smith when the short plat request was submitted.
Mr. Smith indicated he did not have the exact date, but the applicant
would supply this information during his testimony. The Examiner
inquired about the width of the proposed easement, and Mr. Smith
responded that the easement would be 17 feet in width with a proposal
to extend the area to 20 feet by utilizing 3 feet of the subject site
and expand the paving to 15-16 feet. He reported that the present
paved portion is 9 feet in width.
Short Plat #018-77 Page Two
Exception #019-77
Waiver #020-77
The Examiner noted that the applicant had submitted three applications
and requested Mr. Smith to summarize them together, but that they would
be reviewed separately by the Examiner.
Mr. Smith read a letter which had been submitted to the Planning
Department by the applicant on February 10, 1977, regarding exception
to short plat off an easement. The Examiner requested clarification
on the map regarding a turnaround provision from the requested
easement, which Mr. Smith subsequently described.
The Examiner asked if Mr. Smith had additional exhibits or information
to present. Mr. Smith indicated that he had no further comments at
that time.
The Examiner asked Mr. Greene, the applicant, if he concurred in the
Planning Department report. Mr. Greene indicated concurrence but
asked to comment on the report. Speaking was:
Gary A. Greene
4648 89th Avenue S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Mr. Greene reported that in response to the Examiner's inquiry, the
property to the north was short platted ten to fifteen years ago.
In regard to the turnaround, Mr. Greene indicated that a turnaround
was possible and would be incorporated into the final design plan.
The applicant stated that he would be willing to answer any further
questions. :
The Examiner asked for additional testimony in favor of the application.
Responding was:
Bev G. Morrison
3011 Mountain View Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Morrison briefly summarized the history of acquisition of the
property and indicated that Lot B, which contains 10,500 square feet,
had been deeded to his son-in-law, Mr. Greene. He stated that the
proposed structure would not interfere with the value of neighboring
property and was hopeful that the request would not cause dissension
in the neighborhood.
The Examiner asked for testimony in opposition to the application.
Responding was:
William I. Mendenhall
3007 Mountain View Avenue N.
P.O. Box 357
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Mendenhall reported that he resides to the south of Mr. Morrison
and had spoken with Mr. Greene on March 14 regarding the proposed
construction. He indicated he was opposed to the request for the
following reasons: 1) A verbal agreement was made by neighbors at
the time of original purchase and construction of homes to place
structures ina line to prevent the obstruction of views. However,
some owners had broken the agreement during sale of homes; 2) Building
a residence in front of his home would not increase the value of the
property, and he objected to problems of drainage and obstruction of
lake view; 3) Mr. Mendenhall's residence would face directly towards
the proposed residence because of the existing dogleg in the land; and
4) He did not wish to develop his property, and the development would
entail negotiating with the abutting neighbor, Mr. Shane, for an
easement access. Mr. Mendenhall briefly reviewed the history of
acquisition of the property and expressed the desire to maintain a
good relationship with his neighbors, but felt the need to conform
to the original verbal agreement.
Short Plat #018-77 Page Three
Exception #019-77
Waiver #020-77
The Examiner inquired about the agreement. Mr. Mendenhall indicated
that it was verbal, not written, but felt it was a moral, binding
agreement. The Examiner reported that the Planning Department had
indicated a concern regarding obstruction of views, and asked Mr.
Mendenhall if the proposed low profile structure was limited to a
maximum height of 15-18 feet, would it obstruct his view of the lake.
Mr. Mendenhall responded that a new home would obstruct his view and
expressed the concern that a precedent would be set which would
increase the density of the area and obstruct views from existing
residences.
The Examiner asked Mr. Mendenhall if the structure could be placed
on any area of the lot which would not impair the view. Mr. Mendenhall
reported that the property is level from front to back and because of
the dogleg, construction of a home on any area of the property would
impair the view.
The Examiner indicated that stipulations of the request would include
submitting a site plan and elevation plan of the proposed building
which would require approval by the Planning Department and the
adjacent property owners. Mr. Mendenhall stated that he would contact
an attorney regarding his legal rights in the matter, and indicated
he would require more time to investigate all aspects of the proposal.
The Examiner stated that he would desire to leave all options open in
the matter and asked if Mr. Mendenhall would consider any extenuating
circumstances. Mr. Mendenhall indicated his opposition and requested
reservations for future action.
The Examiner asked for further testimony in opposition to the request.
Responding was:
Charles Shane
3003 Mountain View Avenue N.
Renton, WA 98055
Mr. Shane stated that should Mr. Mendenhall develop his property in
the same way as the applicant's proposal, it would create a similar
view-obstructing situation from his residence. He reported that
purchase of his home had been made because of the desirability of
owning lake front property, and felt that construction of homes on
the lake front portion of the lot changed this aspect. He spoke
regarding the height of the road which is approximately 16 feet above
the water level and the proposed structure which would be limited to
15-18 feet, and reported that homeowners in the area had broken the
verbal agreement to a certain extent with construction of boathouses
and second story additions, and expressed the apprehension that the
verbal agreement would be further broken if homes were sold to new
owners. The Examiner asked Mr. Shane if he had considered dividing
his property and Mr. Shane indicated that he had not. The Examiner
asked Mr. Shane if restricting the height of the building to 18 feet
would obstruct the view. Mr. Shane indicated that it would be
obstructive because of the view of the roof.
The Examiner asked for further testimony in opposition. There was
none. The Examiner asked Mr. Greene if he had further comments in
rebuttal. Mr. Greene submitted two additional exhibits:
Exhibit #4: Elevation Map of Property.
Exhibit #5: Site Plan with Trees Designated.
He explained that the elevation map illustrated the grade from a
north/south point of view and shows no difference between the grade
of the Mendenhall property and the subject property, but if one stands
on the property, the Mendenhall property has a slightly higher
elevation than is shown on the map. He indicated that the verbal
agreement had been broken by the construction of a structure on the
Burr property which has been subdivided. He reported that drainage
Short Pl._- #018-77 Page Four
Exception #019-77
Waiver #020-77
tiles would be installed on the subject property and felt that the
size of the lot of 10,500 square feet prevented a crowded appearance.
He stated that he had agreed to restrictive covenants limiting the
height of the structure to 15-18 feet.
The applicant explained Exhibit #5, which illustrates a number of
large trees including three large willow trees on the Mendenhall
property, one in excess of 75 feet, which he felt were an obstruction
of the view. He indicated that the Burr residence was 20 feet in
height, but did not obstruct the view from the Morrison residence.
With respect to the elevation, he stated the property is flat, but
increases in height on a crest where existing two-story residences
have been placed. The Examiner asked the applicant about the
contemplated design of the structure. Mr. Greene responded that he
did not plan a flat level house, but would construct a one-story
home with a moderate pitched roof within the height limitation
including the chimney. He indicated there would be no second addition.
The Examiner suggested continuing the hearing in order to allow the
applicant time to contact an architect or have a detailed elevation
plan prepared. Mr. Greene indicated his concurrence and stated that
he had agreed to everything the Planning Department imposed in every
respect. He reported that he had contacted the King County Assessor's
office to investigate property values from a tax point of view and
that the new structure would not increase or decrease property values
in any way. The Examiner asked if the applicant would be willing to
have an architectural site plan and elevation plan prepared even if
the request may be eventually denied or approved. Mr. Greene indicated
his willingness to prepare the necessary plans.
Mr. Morrison stated that the greatest problem with existing lake
views is the presence of large trees on the Mendenhall property, and
felt that the trees could be cut if the issue were the maintenance
of the view. The Examiner asked Mr. Morrison if he had trees on his
property and Mr. Morrison responded that one large tree exists on
Lot B, and it is the intent of the applicant to top the tree. Mr.
Morrison reported that a certain amount of construction had been
accomplished for houses, additions, boat and bath houses, and felt
that the original verbal agreement had been broken between the four
homeowners in the area and was no longer valid.
Mr. Smith commented that the Planning Department staff reports are
prepared without contact with abutting neighbors, and felt that to be
fair to all residents, site and elevation plans should be prepared to
increase awareness of significant impact on existing views, and that
the Planning Department would recommend that this be accomplished. He
indicated that restrictions on the property would be in the form of
covenants with the land, site storm water retention facilities, and
that the Planning Department would not recommend approval of a
condition that will detract from the view.
The Examiner asked Mr. Mendenhall if these suggestions were agreeable
to him. Mr. Mendenhall stated that regarding the previous discussion
about view-obstructing trees, that trees are natural objects and can
be removed, but houses are permanent structures and cannot be removed.
The Examiner directed the comment to Mr. Mendenhall that if he were
opposed to any type of construction, the Examiner would be causing
needless delay to continue the hearing in order to allow preparation
of the pertinent maps and plans and asked Mr. Mendenhall if he would
want to hold his final decision until review of such plans. Mr.
Mendenhall restated that he was opposed to construction, that he may
consider development of the property at some future time, but not at
the present time.
The Examiner summarized the application and noted that his job is not
always an easy one, and he makes every attempt when possible to
arbitrate between supporting and opposing parties. He stated that
both property owners have certain rights, that he would review all
comments and arguments for and against the application, consider the
rights of both parties and reach his conclusion.
The hearing on Item #018-77, #019-77, and #020-77 was closed by the
Examiner at 10:20 a.m.
Short Plat #018-77 Page Five
Exception #019-77
Waiver #020-77
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the record
in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
Lie Mr. Greene, the applicant, requests approval of a two lot short
plat together with an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance to
allow the short plat with a 20 foot easement to the proposed
interior lot. A waiver of off-site improvements is also being
requested.
It is the proposal of Mr. Greene to construct a single family
residence on the west one-half of the Morrison property. This has
been designated as Lot B on Exhibit #3. Lot B is approximately
10,500 square feet in area and will access to Mountain View Ave. N.
via a 20 foot easement located on the north portion of the
property and shared by the Burr residence.
The existing zoning in this area is G-6000, minimum lot size
6,000 square feet. The proposed short plat would be in excess of
the minimum requirement for square footage. This area is known
as Coleman Point and consists of approximately four homes with
lots in excess of 300 feet in depth. The Morrison home is in
line with the Savoy residence built to the north, the Mendenhall
residence built to the south, and the Shane residence also located
to the south. These homes are all located approximately 20 to
35 feet from Mountain View Avenue N. and have front yards in excess
of 200 feet.
The Savoy property to the north has a residence constructed on the
west one-half, now known as the Burr residence. This residence was
formerly a boat house that was remodeled into a cottage and then
converted to a residence approximately 10 to 15 years ago. This
residence was constructed prior to adoption of a short plat
ordinance.
Mr. Greene indicated that he proposes to build a single family
residence that would not exceed a height of 15-18 feet and would
be willing to submit plans and profiles illustrating his proposed
residence.
The four homes in this area were apparently built with similar
setbacks to maintain an unobstructed view of the lake. Construction
of these homes was followed by a verbal agreement made by the
neighbors to prevent the obstruction of adjacent views. The Savoy
residence to the north was sold and a subsequent building was
constructed on the west one-half which violated the intent of the
verbal agreement. Adjacent property owners are concerned about
the effect the proposed structure will have on their lake views.
It was noted that there are several large willow trees located on
the western edge of the property which create an obstruction to
the view.
CONCLUSIONS :
Le These homes in the Coleman Point area have all been built on lake
front property with considerable depth that has a virtually
unobstructed view of Lake Washington and Mercer Island. The
homes are similar in character and architecture and maintain
similar open space areas.
This open space has been violated by the construction of the Burr
residence located to the north. There was apparent opposition to
the construction of this building since it violated a verbal
agreement by the four adjacent property owners.
Construction of additional residences in the front yard areas
would change the character of this residential area and would
in effect double the density.
Short Plat #018-77 Page Six
Exception #019-77
Waiver #020-77
4. Several property owners to the north of the applicant's property
oppose the construction of a single family residence on the
Morrison property.
5. These property owners with the exception of the Savoy residence
have resided in this area for a considerable amount of time and
have certain property rights inherent in the purchase of their
residence.
6. Changing the character of this area by short platting should not
be allowed if there is opposition from adjacent property owners.
7. Efforts to reach a compromise in the hearing process between
supporting and opposing parties were not successful in that the
opposition concurred that they would be opposed to any type of
construction in the front yard areas regardless of restrictions
or submittal of site plans.
8. In the future, it may be feasible to short plat this property
and the adjacent property as indicated by Mr. Greene. However,
this shall only be accomplished when there is concurrence by
adjacent property owners to proceed with this subdivision as it
will change the character of the area and infringe on certain
property rights.
RECOMMENDATION:
For each of the above reasons, recommendation of the Hearing Examiner
is to deny the submitted application.
ORDERED THIS 21st day of March, 1977.
Le: ames L. MagStadt
ane Use Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED THIS 21st day of March, 1977 by certified mail to
the parties of record:
Gary A. Greene
Bev G. Morrison
William I. Mendenhall
Charles Shane
Karl Morrison
TRANSMITTED THIS 21st day of March, 1977 to the following:
Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti
Council President George J. Perry
Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director
Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director
Don J. Smith, Renton Record-Chronicle
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3071, Section 4-3015, request for
reconsideration or notice of appeal must be filed in writing on or
before March 29, 1977. Any aggrieved person feeling that the
decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedures, errors
of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence
which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may
make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen
(14) days of the conclusion of the hearing. This request shall set
forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the
Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he
deems proper.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 15, 1977
APPLICANT: GARY A. GREENE
FILE NO.: SHORT PLAT NO. 018-77; EXCEPTION NO. E-019-77;
WAIVER NO. W-020-77
A, SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Applicant requests approval of a two-lot short plat, together
with an exception from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the
short plat with a 20 foot private easement to the proposed
interior lot.
B. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner of Record: GARY A. GREENE AND BEV G. MORRISON
2. Applicant: Gary A. Greene
3. Location: Vicinity of 3011 Mountain View Ave. N.
4. Legal: Lots 62 and 63, Blk "A," Hillman's
Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addi-
tion to Seattle No. 1, according to
plat thereof. Detailed description
available on file in the Planning
Department.
5. Size of Property: Approximately 21,000 sq. ft. land
area and 15,000 sq. ft. water.
6. Access: Mountain View Avenue N.
7. Existing Zone: G-6000
8. Existing Zoning G-6000
in Area:
9. Comprehensive Single Family Residential
Land Use Plan:
10. Notification: The applicant was notified in writing
of the hearing date. Notice was
properly published in the Record Chron-
icle and posted in three places on or
near the site as required by City
ordinance.
C. PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
The request for short plat, exception, and waiver is to permit
the construction of a single family residence between the
existing single family residence and the shoreline.
D, HISTORY/BACKGROUND:
The area was platted many years ago into narrow lots extending
from Mountain View Ave. N. to the Inner Harbor Line. The
existing house was built on two such 30 foot wide lots. The
house was constructed approximately 250 feet from the water's
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 15, 1977 PAGE TWO
RE:
G,
GARY A. GREENE SHORT PLAT APPLICATION NO. 018-77; EXCEPTION
TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE APPLICATION NO. E-019-77; WAIVER
OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS APPLICATION NO. W-020-77
edge. The adjacent house to the north was built in approxi-
mately the*same position, with a second house later construc-
ted on the waterward portion of the lot subdivided from the
front portion along Mountain View Ave. N. This area is called
Coleman Point and is the only existing residential shoreline
area in Renton that has such large lot depths to the water's
edge.
PHYSICAL BACKGROUND:
1. Topography: The site drops toward Lake Washington from
Mountain View Ave. at a slope of approximately 6%, then
levels off at approximately the center of the property.
The overall elevation difference between the lower half
and the upper half of the site is approximately 7-10 feet.
2. Soils: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (Agc) - Runoff is
slow to medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate.
This soil is used for timber, pasture, row crops, and
urban development.
3. Vegetation: Primarily species induced onto the site by
man, together with lawn area.
4. Wildlife: Various waterfowl] and small rodents.
5. Water: The site is adjacent to Lake Washington.
6. Land Use: There is an existing single family residence
on the site with approximately 250 feet of open space
between the structure and the water's edge. There are
single family residences both north and south of the
subject site. Mountain View Ave. N. abuts the property
on the east. The Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-
way exists to the east of Mountain View Ave. N.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
The area consists of single family residences, most of which
are located on waterfront lots. Except for the area imme-
diately on Coleman Point, most of the homes have been con-
structed on lots with a relatively small amount of develop-
able area.
PURLIC SERVICES:
1. Water and Sewer: An 8" sanitary sewer main and a 6" water
main are available to the subject site.
2. Fire Protection: Provided by the Renton Fire Department
and subject to City of Renton requirements.
3. Transit: Metro Transit Route No. 240 operates along
Lake Washington Blvd. and Burnett Ave. N.
4. Schools: The site is within 3/4 mile of Kennydale Elemen-
tary School.
5. Parks: The subject site is within 1/4 mile of Kennydale
Beach Park and Lake Washington Beach Park.
BO TS OEE PN TT eat aE ERT ee Om inti aerenttteeeneit asthe.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 15, 1977
PAGE THREE
RE:
H,
GARY A. GREENE SHORT PLAT APPLICATION NO. 018-77; EXCEPTION
TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE APPLICATION NO. E-019-77; WAIVER
OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS APPLICATION NO. W-020-77
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE:
1. 4-729, "G" General Classification District
2. 4-706, R-1 Residence Single Family
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS:
1. Subdivision Regulations:
a. Section 9-1105, Plat Requirements for Short Subdivisions
b. Section 9-1108, 23.A(9), Private Streets and Reserve
Stripes
c. Section 9-1108, 23.F
d. ‘Section 9-1109, Exceptions
IMPACTS ON NATURAL SYSTEMS:
The subject proposal will remove a certain amount of soil and
increase runoff through the addition of more impervious sur-
faces to the site.
SOCIAL IMPACTS:
The additional residence to the area will create new social
interactions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/THRESHOLD ;
Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and
the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 as amended (RCW
43.21C), a Declaration of Non-significance has been issued for
the subject proposal (see attached).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
A visinity map and site map are attached.
DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS;
1. The proposed lot sizes are approximately 10,500 square feet
each, exceeding the requirement of 6,000 square feet for
the G-6000 zone.
2. The applicant proposes to construct a low profile residence
on the proposed lot. This combined with the elevation
difference of adjacent properties, should not significantly
impact the view waterward from adjacent properties. How-
ever, height restrictions should be considered.
3. The property immediately to the north of the subject site
has been subdivided in a similar arrangement and a house
constructed on a pipestem-type lot. The applicant pro-
poses to use this pipestem as an access easement to the
proposed interior lot. The proposed overall width of this
easement is 20 feet, which complies with the 20 foot mini-
mum pipestem width of the Sibdivision Ordinance.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING OF MARCH 15, 1977
PAGE FOUR
RE = GARY A. GREENE SHORT PLAT APPLICATION NO. 018-77; EXCEPTION
TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE APPLICATION NO. E-019-77; WAIVER
OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS APPLICATION NO. W-020-77
4. The applicant proposes to pave approximately 6 feet in
addition to the existing 9 foot wide paved area to provide
a total paved driveway width of approximately 15 feet. All
city departments, including the Fire Department, have no
objections to the short plat, exception, and waiver.
5. It may also be possible for the property owner to the
south to subdivide in a similar manner. However, it does
not appear to have sufficient width between structures on
either side to facilitate a suitable driveway easement or
pipestem. Therefore, the granting of the subject request
may not set a precedent in the area.
6. No curbs, gutters, or sidewalks exist along Mountain View
Ave. N. The applicant has agreed to establish restrictive
covenants requiring participation of the Subens property
in any LID for such improvements.
7. Sewer and water are available to the site.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the short plat and exception to permit
the private easement as proposed subject to:
1. Final Planning Department approval of site plan design
and elevation of any structure constructed on the site,
with particular emphasis on height control to protect
the views of adjacent properties. (Suggested maximum
height of 15-18 feet.)
2. Access and utility easements shall be filed with the short
plat. The access easement shall be a minimum 20 feet in
width and be permanently surfaced to a width of 15 feet
to allow proper fire, emergency, and vehicular access.
Recommend denial of the subject waiver request as per Public
Works Department comment and granting of an indefinite deferral
subject to filing of restrictive covenants with the subject
property to ensure its participation in a future LID for such
off-site improvements.
i
22
tabalelel nba
3 ; f: TTT; 4
ope ee TTT is bitin hte © SE rcareecuslibitTATT » Ce Peritchers nina ITT
erin: | i
SHORT PLAT; EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE; WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS:
GARY A. AND JOAN GREENE; File Nos. 018-77, E-019-77, W-020-77; property
Tocated in vicinity of 3011 Mountain View Avenue North.
APPLICANT GARY A. & JOAN GREENE TOTAL AREA
PRINCIPAL ACCESS Mountain View Avenue North
1.25 acres
EXTStING ZONING G-6000, Single Family Residential
EXISTING USE Single Family Residential
PROPOSED USE Single Family Residential
COMPREHENSIVE LAND
COMMENTS
USE PLAN
A
PReposep
SUPPIVIStIE LINE
IN SCALE 1 "=200'
SUBJECT SITE EA
Applicant ~ Garyk 4 JOAN GREENE.
SHort PLAT No. 018-77
Waiver No. Ww- 020-77
Excryption - €- 014-77
fo -
PROPOSED/FINAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE/Nv..-SIGNIFICANCE
Short Plat No. 018-77
Exception No. E-019-77
Waiver of Off-site Application No. Improvements File W-020-77 C) PROPOSED Declaration
Environmental Checklist No. ECF-216-77 Dc] FINAL Declaration
Description of proposal Application for a two-lot short plat approval;
approval for exception from the Subdivision Ordinance for a 20° private
easement to the proposed interior lot; and application for waiver of off-site improvements.
Proponent —__ Gary A. Greene
Location of Proposal Vicinity of 3011 Mountain View Avenue North
Lead Agency Renton Planning Department
This proposal has been determined to 0 have ea not have a
significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS 0 TS
GQ) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was
made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
Reasons for declaration of environmental significance:
Measures, if any, that could be taken to prevent or mitigate the
environmental impacts to such an extent that the lead agency would withdraw its declaration of significance and issue a (proposed/final )
declaration of non-significance:
Responsible Official Gordon Y. Ericksen
Title Plangi Date 3-3-77
Signature
y of Renton
oe Department
NI
D
ct
Jones Ws : BE a ae a we
7
Nee erp7 Ws YH BB RE oF
4648 89th Avenue Southeast
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
February 10, 1977
Planning Department
City of Renton
City Hall
Renton, Washington 98055
Attention: Hearing Examiner and City Council
REQUEST FOR WAIVER FOR OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
I refer to the attached letter to the Renton Planning Department
regarding "An Exception to a Short Plat off an Easement," and
property described therein.
In connection with this short plat application we request a waiver of
off-site improvements which we feel are unnecessary.
There are no off-site improvements on Mountain View Avenue North
at this time. If in the future they are required by the City
of Renton, we will be willing to participate.
Aey Aa
Gary A. Greene, Applicant
for fe Na. £-OVG-277
Ne 6 eppf No. SL 2LG
4648 89th Avenue Southeast
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
February 10, 1977 OF RED ocey
FEB 16 1977
Planning Department
City of Renton
City Hall
Renton, Washington 98055
Attention: Hearing Examiner and City Council
EXCEPTION TO SHORT PLAT OFF AN EASEMENT
We are requesting an exception to the subdivision ordinance to
allow a 2 lot short plat with access provided by private ease-
ment to one of the lots. We feel this request is justified for
the following reasons.
The subject property was purchased by B.G. and Sylvia Morrison
in 1947, and they have been sole owners since.
Mr. and Mrs. Morrison have deeded the west 188' together with
second-class shoreline adjoining to Gary and Joan Greene, for
the purpose of building a low-profile home thereon. The ad-
joining property to the north is owned by Robert Burr, who has
access by private road from Mountain View Avenue North.
Mr. Robert Burr has agreed to grant an easement for access to
the west 188' of subject property and B.G. Morrison is willing
to grant a 3' easement paralleling said road in order to give
said easement a 20' width, and paved road a 16' width.
To date a recent survey of proposed easement has not been made
by a qualified engineer. If this is necessary please inform
us.
We know of two or three other properties on Mountain View Avenue
North where two houses have joint access from Moutain View
Avenue North far less desirable than this proposal submitted.
With this proposal we are filing a covenant to agree to build a
low-profile (one story) house, so that the view from adjoining
properties will not be impaired.
When Ted Jones owned the Burr property approximately fifteen years
ago, he agreed to a joint easement with Mr. Morrison. However, it
was not anticipated that zoning regulations would subsequently be
made to prohibit this action without a request for variance.
Mr. Burr is in the process of building an addition to his home and
is in urgent need of new underground utility lines for his property.
We propose to work together in this regard.
We feel that the proposed subdivision of this property to build a
low-profile house would not be contrary to the city's comprehensive
plan, as the zoning is residential in this area. The lot is 188'
x 60' and is larger than minimum size for a single dwelling. The
access to the lot will certainly be large enough for vehicles,
utilities, fire protection and water supply. The sewer line has
already been established on this lot.
Ae ArLernre,
Gary A. Greene, Applicant
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
WHEREAS, Gary A. Greene 5 Joan Greene ;
B.G. Morrison Sylvia Z. Morrison 9
’ 9
’ >
are the owners of the following real property in the City of Renton,
County of King, State of Washington, described as Exhibit ‘'A' C
attached hereto.
WHEREAS, the owner(s) of said described property desire to
impose the following restrictive covenants running with the land as
to use, present and future, of the above described real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the aforesaid owner(s) hereby establish,
grant and impose restrictions and covenants running with the land
hereinabove described with respect to the use by the undersigned,
their successors, heirs, and assigns as follows:
INSTALLATION OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
au
s
t
The owner(s) of the above described property, their suc- iE
cessors, heirs and assigns, hereby agree and covenant to
participate in, sign a petition in support of, and accept
any future Local Improvement District (LID) or city initia-
ted proposal, and pay their fair share therefore, for the
purposes of providing the necessary off-site improvements
required by the Renton Subdivision Ordinance. Said improve-
ments shall include but may not be limited to the installa-
tion of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street paving, sanitary
a sewers, storm sewers, undergrounding of utilities, and
street lighting.
These covenants are imposed in lieu of Section 9-1105(6)
of Title IX of Ordinance #1628 of the City of Renton.
DURATION
These covenants shall run with the land and expire on
December 31, 2025. If at any time improvements are
installed pursuant to these covenants, the portion of
the covenants pertaining to the specific installed improve-
ments as required by the Ordinances of the City of Renton
shall terminate without necessity of further documentation.
Any violation or breach of these restrictive covenants may be
enforced by proper legal procedures in the Superior Court of King
County by either the City of Renton or any property owners adjoining
subject property who are adversely affected by said breach.
Gary A. Greene Joan Greene
B.G. Morrison Sylvia Z. Morrison
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
COUNTY OF KING )
On this LA day of Zibinitag ; 1977, before me
personally appeared ’ ’
= a te unr We? —_—_
awe es a? pc iti fy iZ Han AA\, LZ i. ’
the person(s) who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and
deed of said person(s) for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal the day and year first above written.
No ry Publ’c in and for th Tete of Washington, residing=at? ae
we ~
. CITY OF RENTON
VU SHORT PLAT
MAJOR PLAT
Steet #067
FILE NO. A Ie = Fox
fo Ot RE Soff lly 0
FEB 16 197%
DATE REC'D 2f-/G6-77
TENTATIVE
PRELIMINARY
FINAL
FEE soe. JS0' FF
RECEIPT NO. /“/’“247
SM NO.
PUD NO.
APPLICANT TO COMPLETE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7:
1. Plat Name & Location 3011 3% mountain View Avenue North Legal
Description Attached
2. No. Lots 2 Total Acreage]] ,280 #de%oningG-6000
3. Owner_ Gary A, and Joan Greene Phone__AD 2.926]
Address 4648 89th Avenue Southeast, Mercer Island, Washington 98040
4.. Engineer Phone
Address
5. Underground Utilities: Yes No Not Installed
Telephone __ _
Electric
Street Lights
Natural Gas
TV Cable an
n
6. Sanitation & Water:
[XX City Water
/_/ Water District No.
(Xk Sanitary Sewers
/_/ Dry Sewers
/_/ Septic Tanks
7. Vicinity and plat maps as required by Subdivision Ordinance
8. DATE REFERRED TO:
ENGINEERING PARKS
BUILDING _ HEALTH
TRAPPE IC ENG « STATE HIGHWAY
FIRE COUNTY PLANNING
BD. PUBLIC WORKS OTHER
9. STAFF ACTION:
___ SHORT PLAT APPROVED __ DENIED
____ TENTATIVE PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED
10. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: +
__ PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED | __ DENTED
_ FINAL PLAT APPEALED OO PXPTRED
pm CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
__ PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED DENIED
___ FINAL PLAT APPEALED EXPIRED
12. DEFERRED IMPROVEMENTS:
DATE DATE BOND NO. &
TYPE GRANTED EXPIRES AMOUNT
Planning Dept.
Rev. 12/71
IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON
West 188' lots sixty-two (62) and sixty-three (63),
block "A", Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden
Addition to Seattle No. 1, according to plat thereof
recorded in Volume II of plats, page 63, records of
_ gaid county;
TOGETHER with Second class shorelands adjoining, as
established by decree entered October 19, 1923, in
King County Superior Court Cause No. 156371.
AFFIDAVIT
Ty , being duly sworn, declare that I am the owner of the property involved in this application and that the
roregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information
herewith submitted are in all respects true ce iebiaacla to the best of
my knowledge and belief. ; { B.G. Morrison
\ San A A jae ws eeespuccinethic., Dewass . a Ne
Subscribed and sworn before me \ Sylvia Z. Morrison
yl - > Yt4
this_(9 day ot hate ay 1 WIZZ Xe lit.a_) Wi SAAD OF]
Notary Public in and for the State of Id.
-
i o\fhy. Washington, residing at AOL « & VQ
- ay aa 5
if Gary A. Greene / (D0, hl Ble Pau Kexspfcthitens
(Nam@Y of Notary Public) (Signatuve of Owner)
; VK f fr: JA CSE Hob! Leer a. _¥6uB ath S.E. (Address) . (Address)
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
(City) (State)
AD 2 - 9261 (Telephone)
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify ¢ it_the foregoing application has been inspected by me
and has been found b® | rough and complete in every particular and to
conform to the £2 lations of the Renton Planning Department
governing the pplication.
Date Receive
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application No. <-°o"%-77 ¢ Short SVa# ork- Fo
Ca -esa=F7F
Environmental Checklist No. ze ee - Po
PROPOSED, date: FINAL, date:
C) Declaration of Significance
[_] bectaration of Non-Significance
COMMENTS:
[_Joectaration of Significance
[[] cectaration of Non-Significance
Introduction The State Environmen
‘all state and local governmental a
own actions and when licensing pri
prepared for all major actions.sig The purpose of this checklist is t
proposal is such a major action.
Please answer the following questi
presently available to you. Where you believe an explanation would b
explanation in the space provided,
include references to any reports
vant to the answers you provide.
agencies involved with your propos
out unnecessary delay.
The following questions apply to y
you are currently applying or the
tal Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCW, requires
gencies to consider environmental values both for their vate proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be nificantly affecting the quality of the environment. .
o help the agencies involved determine whether or not a
ons as completely as you can with the information explanations of your answers are required, or where
e helpful to government decision makers, include your or use additional pages if necessary. You should or studies of which you are aware and which are rele- Complete answers to these questions now will help all
al to undertake the required environmental review with-
our total proposal, not just to the license for which
proposal for which approval is. sought. Your answers
should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed,
even though completion may not occ
of the agencies which will be invo
ur until sometime in the future. This will allow all
lved to complete their environmental . revien now, with-
out duplicating paperwork in the future.
NOTE: This is a standard form bei
of Washington for various types of
your proposal. If a question does
next question.
ng used by all state and local ‘agencies in the State
proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to not apply, just, answer it "no" and continue on tothe
I.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
BACKGROUND
f.
(ae
Name of Proponent Gary A. and Joan Greene
Address and phone number of Proponent:
4648 89th S.E. Mercer Island, Washington 98040
3. Date Checklist submitte
4. Agency requiring Check1:
5. Name of proposal, if ap
d
ist City ‘Of Renton, Planning Department
plicable: .
6. Nature and brief descri size, general design el understanding of its sc
ption ofthe proposal (including but not limited to its
ements, and other factors that will give an accurate
ope and nature):
Subdivision of a lot allowing a 2 lot short plat with access providdd' hy
a private 20' easement road to one of the lots. _Each lot will be 60'x _
188' with only one lot having 60' on Lake Washington. (See attached map
with legal description). The purpose is for building a low profile house
on the water front lot, located approximately 50° from the lake front.
+ aman eines
I.
=9-
7. Location of proposal (describe the physical setting of the Proposal, as well
as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including
any other information needed to give an accurate understanding of the environ- mental setting of the proposal):
A water front property loacted at 3011 Mountain View Avenue North, Renton,
Washington, 98055. The lot is planted with grass at this time and has a
gentle slope to the water.
8. Estimated date for completion of the proposal:
Six months after acceptence by Renton Planning Department.
9. List of all permits, licenses or government approvals required for the proposal
(federal, state and local--including rezones):
At this time we are applying for a subdivision of property. If approved
we will be applying for building permits, etc.
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
No
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may*affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain:
cal
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected ta be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form: vi
We are in the process of filing a short plat application to the City of
Renton Planning Department.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 7 1s «6
(Explanations of all "yes" and,"maybe" answers are required)
(1) Earth, Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? : i MAYBE | A"
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over-
covering of the soil?
aR
5
_(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
(d) The destruction, covening or modification of any:
unique geologic or physjcal features? ar vl
’ 4 4
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
7
8 : 3
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion whith may modify the channel of a river or stream or:the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? - : MAYBE Vn 4
Explanation:
(B) - Driveway and house foundation only.
(3)
(4)
Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? eX
YES MAYBE NO
(b) The creation of objectionable odors? XX
VES MAYBE NO
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or
regionally?
YES WAYBE NO
Explanation:
‘¥(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or x ' ie
Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of
water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? YES” waver ao
the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
N0
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ” ERX
YES MAYBE NO (d) Change in the amount of surface waters jn aany water eh body? XX YES WAYBE “NO
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
surface water quality, including but not limited;to - yy
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Yes MAYBE NO
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters? ahs mae?
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through ux interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? YES MAYBE NO
(h) Deterioration in ground nuRh quality, either through
direct injection, or ares is seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, wW water otne “virus or bacteria,
or other substances into the ground waters?
xx
YES MAYBE NO
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? sie . XX YES MAYBE NO
Explanation: (Cb) DUE TO COUEPED pen = HOUSE.
INNOD. DRIVE way
Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic ep ix WKYEE =
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora? ' ; , i YES” MAYBE
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or
in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing
species? p ‘ YES” MAYBE
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ) ) YES” MAYBE a
Explanation: The lot is in grass now, and this will be reduced by the size
(6)
(7)
(9)
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Xe
(10)
(11)
“Explanation:
a=
]
“of an area?
aQs
Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of
any species of fauna (birds, land animals including
reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna)? XX YES” MAYBE WO
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna? xx.
YES MAYBE N
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna {nto an area,
or result in a barrier to the migration or movement
of fauna? x.
YES MAYBE \
(d) Ceterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Xx VES MAYBE NO
Explanation: :
Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? XX: ni YES MAYBE NO.
Explanation: i a
a
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or ; glare? unk
-
and Use... Will the proposal result in the alteration of the resent or planned land use of an area? ty XX YES MAYBE NO”
Fo
l
Explanation:
Natural Resources... Will the proposal} result in:
YES MAYBE
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? et XX:
a
Explanation:
re
ae
Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release Of pet ssous substances (including, but not limited to, oft,ipesticides, chemicals or rad{ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
iy
Explanation:
Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, or growth rate of the human population .
Explanation:
»
=
(12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? XX
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
(13) Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X aad
MAYBE NO (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? XX
YES WAYBE NO
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? P
YES MAYBE
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? XX
YES MAYBE WN
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Pr
YES MAYBE 0
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
Explanation: (a) SMNUL CNG “. UE TO BOD ION:
QE ONE FAYILY.
(14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services
in any of the following areas: . ;
(a) Fire protection? XX
YES MAYBE WO®
(b) Police protection? XX YES MAYBE NO
(c) Schools? a XX
YES MAYBE NO
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities? XX
a@oytit oo ‘ YES MAYBE NO
*(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? XX YES MAYBE NO
(f) Other governmenta) services? XX YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
(15) Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? XX
; YES MAYBE
(b) Demand upon existing soupces ‘of energy, or require. xX
the development of:new 5 urces of energy?
4 : j
Explanation:
(16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new
systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
(c) Water? = _—__
(a) Power or natural gas? XX YES MAYBE NO
(b) Communications systems? XX
YES MAYBE NO
XX
NO
AN Na
e «
» e
Ill.
(17)
er oF
a
a6
(d) Sewer or septic tanks? _ — call YES MAYBE. NO
(e) Storm water drainage? =e. Sooo. XX YE MAYB: . NO
(f) Solid waste and disposal? ee XX
Explanation:
Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of
any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? XX
YES MAYBE. NO
Explanation:
(18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of
any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Po
YES MAYBE = NO Explanation: (HE BODITIOO OF & Low PRORUE House.
WILL Wwe f§ MiDINN BEFECT.
(19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
- quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? XX ES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
(20) Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an
alteration of a significant archeological or historical
site, structure, object or bu@lding? = = _ XX ; YES MAYBE NO
Explanation; (0 ;
SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information
is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any decla- ration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should
there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
" ' 4 Aroponent: Al » 4 Bc : signed :
e GARY A. GREENE — name printe
’
City of Renton
Planning Department
5-76
LAKE. \WASHINGTON
—
—
—
-_
-_
-
—
°
-
_
-_
——
_
—
n
n
e
s
oe
—
a
~
a
a
_
a
S
A
V
O
Y
a
n
e
a
RE
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
.
=
_
a
ee
-
a
I
T
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
:
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
.
+
U
N
E
,
o
l
3
P
A
V
E
O
B
r
—
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
I
T
’
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
2
0
O
V
E
R
A
L
L
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
e
s
a
c
a
Q
t
+
X
k
s
p
e
s
e
n
T
SH
O
R
T
PL
A
T
WE
S
T
|8
8
'
LO
T
S
Si
x
t
y
TW
O
G
A
4
SI
X
T
Y
TH
R
E
E
GS
)
,
BL
O
c
K
"A
,
HI
L
L
U
M
A
N
’
S
LA
K
E
WA
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
GA
R
D
E
N
OF
ED
E
N
AD
D
I
M
O
N
TO
SE
A
T
I
L
E
.
No
.
|
AT
O
R
D
I
N
G
TO
PL
A
T
TH
E
R
E
S
]
RE
C
O
R
D
E
D
IN
VO
L
U
M
E
.
||
OF
PL
A
T
S
,
PA
G
E
6%
,
RE
C
O
R
D
S
OF
SN
D
CO
U
N
T
Y
TO
G
E
T
H
E
R
.
WI
T
H
SE
N
D
CL
A
S
S
SH
O
R
E
L
A
N
I
D
S
“A
D
J
O
I
N
I
N
G
,
AS
ES
T
A
B
U
S
H
E
D
BY
DE
C
R
E
E
.
EN
T
E
R
E
D
OC
T
O
R
E
R
\
9
,
\
6
2
3
IN
_
KI
N
G
Qu
U
N
T
Y
SU
P
E
R
I
O
R
GO
U
R
T
CA
U
S
E
MO
.
|5
G
5
7
1
WO
H
EA
S
RN
NS
ea
t
N
LO
T
SI
X
T
Y
ON
E
Gl
)
3
SI
X
T
Y
WO
@
WOLiCE UF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
RENTON, WASHINGTON
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON LAND USE HEARING EXA 7 1G MINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, RENTON WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 15 , 1977 _, AT 9:00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS:
1. APPLICATION FOR TWO LOT SHORT PLAT APPROVAL; file
No. 018-77; property located in vicinity of
3011 Mt. View Ave. No.
2. APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE;
file No. E-019-77; property located in vicinity of
3011 Mt. View Ave. No.
¥ 3. | WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TWO LOT SHORT
PLAT; file No. W-020-77; property located in vicinity
of 3011 Mt. View Ave. No.
4. REZONE FROM G-6000 TO R-3; file No. R-022-77;
property located between Lake Washington and
Ripley Lane North adjacent to and north of Misty
Cove Apartments.
5. SITE APPROVAL IN M-P ZONE; file No. SA-021-77;
property located on north side of S.W. 7th St.
west of Hormel Co. facility and east of the
Earlington Golf Course and railroad spur track.
Legal descriptions of applications noted above on file in
Renton Planning Department.
ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID PETITIONS
Late _ AT 9:00 A.M. TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 15, [XPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. ~
GORDON Y. ERICKSEN
RENTON PLANNING DIRECTOR rueE TERED March 4, 1977 t YG DIRECTOR
CERTIFICATION
ka _ Michael a smith __, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THREE COPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN THREE CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn
to before me, a Notary Public, . ff} f / 4 ff on the lst day of March , L AS/f (AX ff
l 9g 7 Vi Oe —— S I 6 NN E rn ier y - ¢ fo / rd : f or eh SIGNED Y EL le = ol pbess ra
“cn OO THE CITY OF RENTON
al a Z MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055
ae & CHARLES J. DELAURENT!, MAYOR @ PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ae 235-2550 4
February 25, 1977
Gary A. Greene
4648 - 89th Ave. S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
AJ
=: NOTICE OF APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR APPLICATION FOR SHORT PLAT APPROVAL, FILE NO. 018-773 EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, FILE NO. E-019077; WAIVER OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, FILE NO. W-020-77
Gentlemen:
~ne Renton Planning Department formally accepted the
azive mentioned application on February 16, 1977. A
p.slic hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner hzs been set for March (5, 1977 .
Representatives of the applicant are asked to be pre-
All interested persons are invited to attend the
ire If you have any further questions, please call
Renton Planning Department, 235-2550.
Very truly yours,
Gordon Y. Ericksen
Planning Director
‘ - - A SAA y,
By: Wel Hk Mighael L. Smith
Associate Planner
wr
ROUTE SCHEDULE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE ROUTED 2/8/97
PLEASE REVIEW THIS APPLICATION FOR:
REZONE MAJOR PLAT
SITE APPROVAL SHORT PLAT
SPECIAL TOE" Gey GES J WAIVER’)
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT —_—
PERMIT OR EXEMPTION
AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WITH ANY COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE, BEFORE ges, 77
SIGNATURE
OR
INITAL/ DEPARTMENT APPROVAL DENTAL DATE
ee Qurtorng) | Be L Ce VY TRAFFIC eno) be S/aq/7
ae = Secs /
NGINEERING } _ 2/34/97
Zrleg ir?
HEALTH a aA —— :
a
REVIEWER'S COMMENTS OR APPROVAL CONDITIONS:
fo ee c* Mae iy: #. 8t + Lay | fof 7? (2f oo j AMS 4, yey
fo 5-) i en Eo V1 2,272 E sf? ps EL ehh SL FLEE | - PLC ES AM VOLENRAST LAL ELE, DB SMP DD tt FE oe Fi
4 ATA “Ser~ rc Od Pa 2? 2? vy Ex £5 £LGWCO Ly Fike. Cvs eC 135 -350/ CC )
PLEASE SIGN THE £.1.W.:
ENDING
OF FILE hot e
— O18-77
, hey git